Before the Law
David Theroux, in his introduction to Fresh Air Fiend, attempts to define what it means to be a stranger. On the second page he brings up the concepts of alienation and the anti-hero. I have always been especially interested in these archetypal characters, although Theroux has a few problems with them. He brings up Raskolnikov and Mersault, two of my heroes in literature. Raskolnikov at the end of Crime and Punishment ends is alienation and is vindicated through prison and religion. So he resolves into the mainstream, no longer an outsider. Albert Camus in his novels The Stranger and also A Happy Death (the less known precursor), develops the idea of the other in depth. The stranger is someone who does not know how to lie, he does not know how to buy into the samsara of life, therefore he feels alienated. The word alienation was primariy used by Karl Marx in reference to the industrial revolution and capitalism. It had a few different meanings for him including, alienation from what man creates, alienation from the act of creating, and alienation from his fellow man. One of my favorite Camus quotes of all time is, "lying is not only saying what is false, IT IS FAILING TO RECOGNIZE TRUTH". So he is a stranger in that he is one of the only people to recognize authenticity, everyone else is living under bad faith/absurdity. Theroux has a large problem with these characters because of their archetypal nature. He says that they seem to cookie cutter for his liking, a little too predictable. He is far more interested when you see some from within the fold become an outsider. This idea is mirrored in ancient greek tragedy, which required a tragic fall from grace. The fall had to be a high one for the moral/point of the story to be convinving. Likewise Theroux seems to enjoy that high fall, or as in Hamlet, "There is special providence in the fall of a sparrow". I don't want to get too much into this, but the idea of what it means to be a stranger is an important one.
The other point that I enjoyed from Theroux that he only mentions briefly is deviancy. He writes, "What makes us human is our capacity for deviant behavior" (37). This is also phrased "I am a man because I err". Also in my Currents in American Lit. class today we were discussing Poe short stories and the idea that we are somehow all subconsciously attracted to lawbreaking. It seems, and this could be a huge leap, that there is something inherently, fundamentally wrong with any system of law in general, in that it is constant temptation to our human freedom (if in fact we are not determined or fated). Possibly this is evidence for the Hobbes or Lao Tzi perspective. That human beings need to be ruled with a heavy fist because we inherently dislike any sort of social obedience. The only reason we engage in this obedience at all is compramise. We HAVE to believe as fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters, etc that we are getting out of the system more than we are putting in. Regardless of whether this is true or not, we have to BELIEVE that it is true. This is very important, or else the system itself will lose legitimacy. It may be as simple as the local tender at your favorite bar pretending to give you good deals all the time (but he's really not), and you pretend to be grateful that he is hooking you up. You both know that the reality of the situation is that there is an equal tradeoff, yet you get something else out of believing the illusion, prestige. The sense comes that you are somehow special, that you have risen above the multitude, so you allow the system to perpetuate itself. I don't know, this is enough meandering for the night.
The other point that I enjoyed from Theroux that he only mentions briefly is deviancy. He writes, "What makes us human is our capacity for deviant behavior" (37). This is also phrased "I am a man because I err". Also in my Currents in American Lit. class today we were discussing Poe short stories and the idea that we are somehow all subconsciously attracted to lawbreaking. It seems, and this could be a huge leap, that there is something inherently, fundamentally wrong with any system of law in general, in that it is constant temptation to our human freedom (if in fact we are not determined or fated). Possibly this is evidence for the Hobbes or Lao Tzi perspective. That human beings need to be ruled with a heavy fist because we inherently dislike any sort of social obedience. The only reason we engage in this obedience at all is compramise. We HAVE to believe as fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters, etc that we are getting out of the system more than we are putting in. Regardless of whether this is true or not, we have to BELIEVE that it is true. This is very important, or else the system itself will lose legitimacy. It may be as simple as the local tender at your favorite bar pretending to give you good deals all the time (but he's really not), and you pretend to be grateful that he is hooking you up. You both know that the reality of the situation is that there is an equal tradeoff, yet you get something else out of believing the illusion, prestige. The sense comes that you are somehow special, that you have risen above the multitude, so you allow the system to perpetuate itself. I don't know, this is enough meandering for the night.